A Played-out Policy
TO THE EDITOR
OF THE “PALL MALL GAZETTE”:
Sir—In your courageous crusade against the Demon Dulness and his preposterous surroundings, I think it well that there should be delivered into your hands certain documents for immediate publication, Pall Mall Gazette, Dec. 9, 1886. that your readers may be roused quickly, and hear again how well fenced in are the foolish in strong places—and how greatly to be desired is their exposure, discomfiture, and death—that Truth may prevail.
It happened in this way. The criticism in the Times called for instant expostulation, and my answer was consequently sent in to the Editor, who forthwith returned it, regretting “that its tone prevented its appearance in the paper.”... I thereupon withdrew to write the following note to the Editor in person:—
“Dear Sir—Permit me to call your courteous attention to the fact that the enclosed letter to the Editor of the Times is in reply to an article that appeared in your paper—and that, as I sign my name in full, I alone am responsible for its tone or form; indeed, that such is its tone and form, is because it is my letter.
“In common fairness the answer to, or comment upon, any statements made in your paper should be published in your paper, as proper etiquette prevents its insertion in any other journal.
“Also, you surely would not propose to dictate certain forms or styles in which alone the columns of the Times are to be approached—as who should say all other savour of sacrilege!—or acquiescence alone would do, and you would have to write all your letters yourselves.
“My letter concerns the effect produced by criticism of a commonplace and inferior kind, wholly unworthy the first paper in England—and I am startled to learn, and still unwilling to believe, that the Times would shun all ventilation and refuse to publish any letter as its sole means of screening its staff or protecting its writers.
“I submit that the tone of my letter sins against no laws that are accepted in antagonism—that it offends in no way the etiquette of attack known to gentlemen.
“I beg, therefore, again, that if there be still time for its insertion, you will have it printed in your issue of to-morrow, or will say that it shall appear in the Times of Thursday morning.
“I am, dear Sir,
“Very faithfully,
“J. McNeill Whistler.”
I was now told, “with the Editor’s compliments,” “that my letter should be considered.” Taking this in complete good faith, I left the office, to discover the next day in print a remnant of the letter in question; that, by itself, entirely did away with sufficient reason for its being there at all. The two ensuing notes explain themselves:
To J. McN. Whistler, Esq.:
“The Editor of the Times has inserted in to-day’s paper the only portion of Mr. Whistler’s letter of November 30 which appears to have any claim to publication.
“Printing House Square, Dec. 1, 1886.”
“To the Editor of the Times:
“Dear Sir—I beg to acknowledge the consummate sense of opportunity displayed by the Editor of the Times, in his cunning production of a part of my letter.
“Amazing! Mes compliments!”
Without further comment I hand you a copy of the rejected letter.
“To the Editor of the Times.—Sir—In his article upon the Society of British Artists, your Art gentleman ventures the opinion of the ‘plain man.’
“That such opinion is out of place and stultifying in a question of Art never occurs to him, and it is therefore frankly cited as, in a way, conclusive.
“The naïf train of thought that justified the importance attached to this poor ‘plain’ opinion at all would seem to be the same that pervades the writing throughout; until it becomes difficult to discover where the easy effrontery and self-sufficiency of the ’plain one,’ nothing doubting, cease, and the wit and wisdom of the experienced expert begin—so that one unconsciously confounds the incautious critic with the plausible plain person, who finally becomes the same authority.
“Blind plainness certainly is the characteristic of the solemn censure upon the fine work of Mr. Stott, of Oldham—plain blindness the omission of all mention of Mr. Ludovici’s dainty dancing-girl.
“Bewilderment among paintings is naturally the fate of the ‘plain man,’ but, when put forth in the Times, his utterances, however empty, acquire a semblance of sense; so that while he gravely descants with bald assurance upon the engineering of the light in the galleries, and the decoration of the walls, the reader stands a chance of being misled, and may not discover at once that the ’plain’ writer is qualified by ignorance alone to continue.
“Permit me, therefore, to rectify inconsequent impressions, and tell your readers that there is nothing ‘tentative’ in the ’arrangement’ of colour, walls, or drapery—that the battens should not ’be removed’—that they are meant to remain, not only for their use, but as bringing parallel lines into play that subdivide charmingly the lower portion of the walls and add to their light appearance—that the whole ’combination’ is complete—and that the ’plain man’ is, as usual, ’out of it.’—I am, Sir, etc.,
“J. McNeill Whistler.”
The question of fair dealing and good manners in this matter I could not leave in better hands than your own, and I will only add that hitherto I have always met with the utmost readiness on the part of the press to receive into their columns any reply, however opposed to assertions of their own.
Surely it is but poor policy this peremptory attempt to maintain in authority the weak and blundering one, that he may destroy himself and bring sorrow upon his people.
Rather let him be thrust from his post, that he may be “brayed in a mortar among wheat with a pestle”—that the Just be assuaged and foolishness depart from among us.